Stirling resident Lynn Norcia Blakeselee surveys examples of streetscapes at the Thursday, Sept. 28, public forum. The streetscapes were provided as jumping-off points for residents to discuss what components they liked and disliked. Blakeslee was partial to sidewalks with plantings and outdoor seating.

Confusion, acrimony mar Stirling development forum in Long Hill

The crowd at the senior center Thursday night dwindled to about 20 people after the information-gathering session deteriorated into shouting and accusations.

Stirling resident Lynn Norcia Blakeselee surveys examples of streetscapes at the Thursday, Sept. 28, public forum. The streetscapes were provided as jumping-off points for residents to discuss what components they liked and disliked. Blakeslee was partial to sidewalks with plantings and outdoor seating.

LONG HILL TWP. - A public forum on land use in downtown Stirling devolved almost immediately into shouting and confusion Thursday night, Sept. 28, at the senior center.

The meeting was the first of two sessions run by the Morris County Economic Development Corporation (MCEDC) and Topology, a planning firm, to collect public consensus on the future of development in Long Hill’s downtown areas. The ideas and opinions collected by the independent, third-party consultants are to inform the Master Plan Committee as it drafts a revised land use element of the Master Plan.

The next meeting, which will focus on downtown Millington, is scheduled for 7:30 to 9:30 p.m. next Thursday, Oct. 5, at the senior center.

Thursday’s session was derailed to a large degree before it could even begin.

The forum was to begin with a 20-or-30 -minute presentation on existing Master Plan goals and possible recommendations pertaining to the Stirling village zone. The central purpose of the forum, however, focused on what was to occur over the following 90 minutes: the gathering of residents’ opinions on what Main Avenue should look like in 10 or 20 years. That data was to be collected through surveys, Post-it notes on idea boards, and conversations at different stations located around the hall.

Instead, confusion arose as MCEDC Executive Director Meghan Hunscher and Krzysztof Sadlek, director of project management at Topology, were concluding the introduction. The consultants solicited questions solely about the information-gathering process before moving forward with the meeting, but it was clear that some residents believed the consultants were there to propose a plan, when in fact they were there to hear residents’ plans.

Some of the roughly 40 residents in attendance asked important questions that were nonetheless beyond the consultants’ purview as gatherers of public opinion. As the consultants attempted to pivot to the main portion of the forum, the questions soon turned into critical comments about over-development. The comments would be welcomed in written form, Hunscher told residents, in the forthcoming public portion of the meeting.

Within a few minutes, however, little could be heard over the comments, questions and accusations, in addition to side conversations among residents.

‘Chaos’

The situation worsened over the next five minutes, during which time about 10 residents left the meeting altogether. Others asked if the meeting was over, though the part of the meeting that truly mattered had not yet begun. One resident described it as “chaos.”

One resident was screaming in a consultant’s face for minutes on end. Another resident apparently threatened one of the staffers, saying he had a baseball bat in the car, according to Master Plan Committee Chair David Hands.

“I think it’s pretty disgusting that people would treat an outside entity who was just trying to facilitate the meeting like that,” Hands said the following morning.

Topology and MCEDC officials told Hands they have hosted numerous forums in other towns, but had never before encountered what they saw Thursday night in Gillette, according to the Master Plan Committee chair.

Hands said he is going to call Police Chief Michael Mazzeo to see if one resident in particular can be barred from next Thursday’s forum. He said a code of conduct may be established for that meeting, and hopefully police presence. Ironically, a uniformed officer was present for the start of the Sept. 28 meeting, but left after he was berated by an angry resident who questioned his presence there.

“All people are trying to do is talk about Main Avenue and ask what do you want to see there, nothing less. I can’t deal with personal attacks or making somebody feel uncomfortable… We’re trying to do right and get people engaged. I don’t know what people expected, I think we did a reasonable job explaining it. But people just come with a negative attitude, not allowing the people who are there for the right reasons to discuss (Main Avenue).”

Gillette resident Patrick Golden spoke of how other attendees had misunderstood or misused the format of the forum. He said some were more interested in making a statement than participating in the process.

“The goal of this process was to record people’s preferences and provide an information collection point for the Planning Board,” said Golden. “The Township Committee is conspicuously not here by design so that a third company can collect this information. It doesn’t have a horse in the race, so to speak, and people can freely and honestly offer their opinions in a forum that public hearings and things like that don’t really afford.

“In one sense, it is a really good forum if you use it that way, but unfortunately people don’t understand that they can make a difference by offering their input. I guess some want to be loud, some want to make statements. And you can make a statement, just do it on a Post-it.”

Hunscher said she understood from where some of the confusion may have arisen.

“The traditional planning process is more formal where residents are used to being handed something, a plan that they then have to respond to, whereas here we’re actually starting from the ground up where we’re asking them,” said Hunscher. “That can cause some confusion because people don’t realize you’re not telling them, you’re asking them.”

Sadlej said he expected residents to be more comfortable with the format at next Thursday’s meeting. Attendees next week will each be handed Post-it notes as they enter the hall, and will be directed toward the stations earlier in the meeting.

Several residents said Thursday they did not understand who the MCEDC and Topology consultants were. Some believed the meeting was about the Valley Road Redevelopment Zone at the Main Avenue-Valley Road intersection, when in reality it was about Main Avenue from the railroad tracks to Essex Street.

Hands said he will be in attendance for the duration of the Oct. 5 meeting, and will set the scene for attendees within the first few minutes. He said he will explain who the consultants are, what the forum is about, and why it is being conducted. People who cannot control themselves may be escorted out, he said.

In addition to the belligerence exhibited by some residents, an added point of frustration for Hands was attendees’ preoccupation with background issues such as flooding, the sewer ban and affordable housing. Those issues are important, as Hands has explained more than a few times in the past, but hold no bearing on the visionary nature of the meetings.

Millington resident Kathy O’Leary said she felt badly for the MCEDC and Topology consultants, “because they took the brunt of the community’s anger about how this process has been run.”

“This has been completely backward,” she said. “The Master Plan Committee had wanted to do this two or three years ago before they started writing a Master Plan. Now they’ve got a Master Plan that’s nearing completion and now they’re asking us what we want, so they’ve lost all credibility. I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they have the best intentions, but the optics on this are so bad at this point that we’re almost guaranteed that they’re not going to get a real collaborative process.”

O’Leary said she hopes for a more productive meeting next week for the Millington village zone forum. She said she understood why Township Committee and Master Plan Committee officials were not present Thursday, “but it’s almost problematic that they’re not here because these poor people don’t have all the facts to answer basic questions and give us some guidance about what might be a good idea for our town.”

Bigger Picture

Setting the animosity aside, some residents did provide meaningful feedback.

Topology and MCEDC lined tables on one side of the room with about 20 photographs of streetscapes from downtown areas, each design aesthetically distinct from the next. The layout was identical on the other side of the room, but with examples of varying building designs. Residents were invited to place green stickers on the examples they liked, and red stickers on those they did not like. They were invited to further explain their opinions on Post-it notes.

The most popular streetscape image showed the exterior of a coffee shop on a tree-lined sidewalk with plantings and benches facing toward the street. Stirling resident Lynn Blakeslee Norcia wrote “perfect” on a Post-it note, and attached it to the image.

Images of sidewalks with plantings, outdoor seating and outdoor dining were also appealing to Norcia.

Residents seemed to dislike images depicting wider thoroughfares.

Glory Aroneo and Michael Pavlo, both of Stirling, said they want things to stay as they are on Main Avenue. They both said they like the Stirling Hotel and Biagio’s Bakery and Deli, but otherwise did not want to see “hustle and bustle” come to Main Avenue. Neither wants to see townhouses, luxury apartments, or taller buildings, they said.

“If I wanted it to look like Summit I would move to Summit,” said Pavlo. “To me, we don’t need an increase on anything on Main Avenue. If somebody wants to beautify something that’s already there, that’s fine.”

Pavlo was skeptical that a brick and mortar store that is not a restaurant, bank or pharmacy could thrive on Main Avenue given the rising popularity of online shopping. If Stirling was in the middle of nowhere, he said, he could see himself stumping for a coffee shop. However, said Pavlo, he doesn’t exactly need a passport to drive to New Providence, Berkeley Heights or Warren.

“It’s kind of a best kept secret,” Pavlo said of Stirling. “Why do we have to be like every other town? We don’t.”

Judging by the abundance of red stickers on several images, residents were not in favor of some of the boxier, more modern building designs. An image of a strip mall drew only red stickers.

Sadlej noted the images were not the consultants’ suggestions of how Stirling should be developed, but a method of judging which components, which environments residents approved of and disapproved of. Images of modern architecture, for example, were provided not because Topology endorses them, but because it is important for the firm to record what residents do not like.

At least one resident was upset because he interpreted the images as proposals. He left without filling out a questionnaire or providing any written input, saying the images “didn’t fit.” He was not the only resident to leave without submitting any written suggestions or thoughts.

“I think with a lot of these images you have to have an open mind,” said Sadlej. “If we show an image of downtown Madison, what components of that do you like or don’t like? It’s not saying let’s turn Stirling to Madison, per se, it’s what components of that downtown do you like? Do you like the benches, do you like the streetscape, do you like the flowers, do you like the shops? What pieces of that would you like to see here or would you not like to see here?”

The forums are designed to create an empowering, community-led process, Hunscher and Sadlej explained. They want residents to arrive on Oct. 5 with open minds.

Clear suggestions may have been drowned out in the clamor that occurred earlier in the meeting, Hunscher said, but they came through when residents were asked to put pencil to paper.

“When you look at what people have written, you really do start to see a bigger picture come out of this whole process.”

Watch this discussion.Stop watching this discussion.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Be Yourself. We do not accept and will not approve
anonymous comments. If your username is not your name, please sign
your posts as you would a letter to the editor with your full name
and hometown.Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language.PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated.Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything.Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person.Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts.Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.